M/s Kripal Singh Contractor vs State of Uttarakhand and others

LOK PAL SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Chief

Medical Superintendent, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhayay, Government Coronation Hospital, Dehradun.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner firm was awarded the contract of food supply in Pandit Deen Dayal

Upadhayay, Government Coronation Hospital, Dehradun.

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2437 of 2016, Krishna Ballabh vs. State of Uttarakhand and others was filed before this Court, challenging the contract

awarded to the present petitioner on the basis of the wrong certificate submitted by the present petitioner in regard to his experience. The writ petition

was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 01.08.2017 noting that since the present petitioner is continuing the work, the matter

is referred to the Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Pauri Garhwal to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders after giving

opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner.

Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred Special Appeal No. 784 of 2017, M/s Kripal Singh Contractor vs. State of Uttarakhand & others.

The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2017, partly allowed the special appeal and modified the order of the learned

Single Judge dated 1.08.2017. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Division Bench are extracted hereunder:

“7. It is necessary to notice Clause 9 (viii) of Annexure -4 to the writ petition under the Heading ‘Documents Establishing Bidder’s Eligibility

and Qualifications, which reads as under:

“(viii) . Details of experience and past performance of the bidder on Catering (canteen) in the government hospital / nursing colleges / medical

colleges / reputed institutions in private sector and on those of similar nature within the past three years and details of current contracts in hand and

other commitments.â€​

It is not quite clear, whether the employer contemplated catering services to be provided by way of a canteen situated within the premises or

whether it embraced within its scope catering being provided without there being actual canteen. Also we notice that the certificate has been issued

by the Prasad Hospital, as we have already extracted. We would think that the proper course would be that in place of Director, as directed by the

learned Single Judge, the matter is looked into by the Tender Committee, which had already taken a decision finding the experience of the appellant to

be sufficient in the light of the certificate produced along with the rejoinder affidavit.

Accordingly, the Appeal is party allowed. We modify the judgment and direct the Tender Committee of the Hospital, which had decided in favour

of the appellant, to look into the matter taking note of the certificate which has been subsequently issued by the Prasad Hospital also and to take a

decision in accordance with law. The decision will be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this

judgment, necessarily after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the writ petitioner.â€​

The Division Bench of this Court directed the tender Committee of the hospital to look into the matter taking note of the certificate which has been

subsequently issued by the Prasad Hospital and decide the issue within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order dated

13.11.2017 passed by this Court.

The Chief Medical Superintendent, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhayay, Government Coronation Hospital, Dehradun vide order dated 27.12.2017 has

cancelled the contract of the petitioner on the ground that the Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner is forged. Order dated 27.12.2017 has

been challenged by means of this writ petition whereby the contract of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that Experience Certificate

submitted by the petitioner at the time of submitting the tender documents was forged and simultaneously the petitioner has been blacklisted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that the order dated 27.12.2017 be quashed to the extent of blacklisting the

petitioner as the order of blacklisting has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Earlier, the matter was directed to be

inquired by the Chief Medical Officer and to pass the Order of Reference, but no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner that why on filing the

forged Experience Certificate, the petitioner may not be blacklisted by the department.

It is trite that an order of black listing the petitioner is stigma and adversary to its rights and order of black listing affecting the right of the petitioner

should not have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing. Opportunity of hearing is necessary before passing any adverse order against

any individual, firm or company.

In view of the above this Court is of the opinion that order dated 27.12.2017, blacklisting the petitioner, is liable to be quashed. Since, the order

dated 27.12.2017 has been passed to blacklist the petitioner, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Order dated 27.12.2017 is liable

to be quashed as it pertains to the blacklisting the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 27.12.2017 is quashed to the extent that

petitioner has been blacklisted without afforded opportunity of hearing. As far as, remaining part of the order to cancel the contract of the petitioner

will remain intact. Since, the petitioner has worked with the department from 25.07.2016 to 13.11.2017; this period shall not be counted towards the

experience of the petitioner. However, the respondents would be at liberty, if they so choses, to initiate fresh proceedings of blacklisting the petitioner

and pass appropriate orders in this regard after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.